(Psst... Kiwi... don't feel like a bump on a log! Do the things that no one thinks of! Go ahead an edit this; I've saved it for you. —BazookaJoe 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, remember, they added in the easter eggs later on for "No Hands on Deck." Dusk

Aw, Super Martyo Brother just updated that. Tough luck. Are you a bump in the log? Well... I AM the log. Ha! --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Meta-comment on above - please remember, there are good users who have never done a transcript for a toon. (*ahem*) Contributing to the wiki is not limited to doing transcripts or noting Easter eggs. I think I'd rather be a user who adds a correction here or there and is content with that than one who gets upset that he cannot do a transcript or update a template. The point is this: if the toon gets documented by someone, we all win, even if it wasn't by you or I specifically. - Qermaq - (T/C) 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really upset per se, it's just that I want to do what I can to help out. And mainly because it's pretty cool to see what you contributed on a webpage for the world to see. (And thanks, BazookaJoe. Even though someone beat me to the punch. ^-^) --Kiwi 17:57, 27 Feb 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read what I wrote on my user page about this. There are a LOT of ways to contribute. There are undoubtedly still some left. Go and discover one. - Qermaq - (T/C) 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the Chapos were playing on the "Sheep-Eating" part of the dragon's name by calling it the "Multi-Purpose Dragon"? In The King of Town DVD, the Sheep-Eating Dragon is never called anything more than a "dragon", so the wiki gave it that name. Does anyone agree with me that they're referencing the wiki's name for the dragon? If so, is it worth mentioning? —Zelinda 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a stretch. It doesn't seem too likely to me, but if other people agree I won't argue.(Some kind of scientist 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, we did have to differentiate it from alltheotherdragons. But no. It's speculatory to think they based its name on ours, as there's no evidence towards it. We'll just have to wait for DVD commentary. =3 --DorianGray 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is known that TBC do come here to reference a few things, but I don't think they get any of their ideas from it. Like DorianGray just said, wait for Everything Else Vol. 3 or 4 to know for possible (instead of certain. They may never mention it). —NFITC1talk 20:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it sucked. It was my first one. Strong Devon 03:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix the spacing problems. You did a great job though. I kept on getting stupid "someone else has modified the page so you can reload the stupid page over and over and scream in fury!" error. -Teh C.

Yeah, you did a great jaerb — you got it up very quickly, which is a good thing, and although there are some formatting things to be tweaked, people are eager to fix those (as evidenced by the plague of edit conflicts). Trey56 03:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It didn't suck. Yep, it was me who caused all those edit conflicts, because I, the mighty YellowDart, fixed those spaces as soon as possible. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the fact about crap works. It's an obvious reference, and every email that Strong Bad says crap in doesn't have an inside reference. The point of the Fun Facts is usually to point out something interesting. Give me your opinion Visorbot 386 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is true. But then again, I like killing inputting retarded fun facts for the fun of it. Mu-hu-ha-ha-ha. Actually, yes, go ahead and take it off. You are exactly right. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

When characters of tv shows are spun off into their own shows, their behaviors tend to be tweeked a bit to fit the demands of a larger format. This appears to have happened to the KOT, who in other cartoons never let ANYTHING get between himself and anything he considers edible.

I feel like this could probably be reworded into something worth having on the page, but I'm too tired to do it right now, so I put it here for the community to look at. --phlipTC 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This one isn't very important, but here goes.
The King of Town can't really play football without any arms, but I bet a million people noticed that already. --Collin Diver 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else think that The Bishop's voice during The Poopsmith's wedding ceremony was strikingly similar to the voice of the priest at the wedding in The Princess Bride? I did. Trey56 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Similar, yes, but not strikingly so. That is to say, I don't think they're so similar that it's meant to be a reference, though I admit I could be wrong. --Jay v.2015(Talk) 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotta go with Jay on this one. It sounds more like Matt was trying not to sound like Rumble Red, but semi-failing. kai lyn 18:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought when I heard it--Rumble Red! But the bishop from Princess Bride? Not remotely. He doesn't have twouble with his awws like that bishop. --
Nevadie 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Poopsmith didn't speak in this Toon, though. He just nodded and at one point opened his mouth to kiss the flowers (before they wilted). — KieferSkunk(talk) — 02:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As Defender pointed out in edit summaries, even though the Poopsmith's yet to actually officially talk, he still has a voice, which has been heard in different town and senior prom... so though he's never officially spoken in a toon, we have heard his voice. I think the fact should be rewritten to remove the ambiguity... say that the Poopsmith and the Hornblower have never been seen talking, or something, rather than saying they don't have a voice. --phlipTC 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, even if we assume The Poopsmith doesn't sound anything like what we heard in different town and senior prom (which is as safe an assumption as any) it remains that for him to have "taken a vow of silence" (Who Said What Now?) he must therefore have a voice of some kind. - Qermaq - (T/C) 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Considering that this is a comedic site in nature, it's not inconceivable that he could be naturally mute and take a vow of silence. It sure would be easy to accomplish. He could've also had his voice box removed... but that's not likely given the gory or excessively medical nature it would involve. Organous 05:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: where do TBC call it the "Multi-function dragon"? In an earlier post, someone mentioned that that really was its name. But...I don't see it anywhere. Did a wiki user make it up?--
Nevadie 22:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a sign what points to it and tells its name. --DorianGray 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do shilouetted characters count as having appeared? The Little Chef Guy appears in shilouette in the first shot of the cartoon. Or does the title screen count for character appearances as well? --Kiwi 18:11, 27 Feb 2007 (UTC)

I think the title screen counts — he even says, "For reals this time!" Trey56 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

About that line, "Have you tried wearing a baseball cap and wearing deoderant on the outside of your shirt?"; does that reference anything? I think it might be a generic reference to sports coaches, but is it anything more? I can't figure it out. -Brightstar Shiner 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me of a commercial that used to exist, I think.

You're thinking of a set of commercials for clear deodorants, where the "challenge" is to wear the deodorant normally and then turn your shirt inside-out or take it off and examine the armpits to see if any of the deodorant has rubbed off visibly onto the shirt. I don't have specific brands or anything, but this is a tactic that has been used for at least 15 years (I remember seeing those types of commercials when I was a kid).

Yeah, I remember a commercial that was on not too long ago that used that same tactic. Probably refers to that. -Brightstar Shiner 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant imagine how a commercial that advertised a deodorant that claimed to dry clear could have anything to do with covering up odor! Its at least as likely that either

a.) The baseball cap would cover ur sweaty head and deodorant would smell really strong cuz it was on the outside of your shirt

or b.) That sports players stink, so if u looked like one, people might respect you anyway -JamesDean 06:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the tactic in those clear deodorant commercials is just to tell consumers, "Hey, our deodorant doesn't leave any embarrassing white stuff on you or your shirt!" Whether or not that has any relevance to the product's intended use (to reduce/mask body odor), or whether people would actually notice such marks in normal circumstances, is totally irrelevant. That's advertising for you. — KieferSkunk(talk) — 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

KoT clearly says "upside your shirt" (edited transcript to fix this), as in lifting your shirt up so you can slather deodorant on your unwashed body still wearing the same clothes as yesterday. And wearing a baseball cap to cover your greasy unwashed hair. -- Wfaulk 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm... yuck. That's just a little more detail than the good people of the wiki needed to hear. Also, we're not sure if it's "upside" or "outside". Look a couple topics below here. -Brightstar Shiner 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't thing "Great way to protect this house." is a reference to Under Armour. I think it's just an odd sentence. Retromaniac 23:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I would say it isn't any more odd than when it's said in the UA commercials. It's an odd slogan to start with. But KOT and co. are playing football after all, and the UA ads are all about big tackles and spearing people, and claiming to have 'protect(ed) the house', whatever that is. Saying 'protect this house' in lieu of something else at that moment seems way too specific for it not to be a reference to the slogan.

I'm changing the remark about the Bishop's change to purple being about Lent; though it is true that purple is the color of stoles which many denominations wear during Lent, purple is the traditional color of bishops' vestments, whereas a priest or other clergyman would retain his usual clothes, changing only his stole.
pensivepoet.babblingbard

I agree with your fact change. If purple is the traditional colour for bishops, then that is a better explanation for the colour change than lent. Loafing 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me — I suspected the same thing, but I wasn't sure enough about bishops' robes to make the change. Trey56 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the Multi-function dragon's weakspot resemble that of the dragon Smaug from The Hobbit
Both of them have a visible crevice in their chest which when hit with sharp projectiles causes swift demise.
Could one of you more experienced wikifolk shove this on the STUFF page if you feel so inclined? Not sure if its a reference, but its the first thing I thought of when I saw it. 209.155.107.2 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting connection — I don't personally think it's intended (wasn't Smaug's weakness between his scales, or a hole in his scales, or something?), but if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and register for an account, follow these instructions for this page, and I'll watch what you do to make sure it's set up correctly. If you don't feel like doing it but another registered user agrees you with you, they may feel inclined to STUFF it. Hope this helps, Trey56 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Smaug's belly was covered in diamonds and jewels that he had been sleeping on, and there was only a slight hole, which was his weakness. A lot of dragon deaths appear to occur this way (for example, in Dragonheart, a projectile is thrown as his weakness), so I don't think you can connect it to just one specific instance.

True, but where do all these other fantasy things get this idea from? Tolkien. I'm not sure whether I buy the connection, but, since those others get that idea from The Hobbit, if it is a reference, it's not just a general fantasy one. User:pensivepoet.babblingbard

An image of a whatsit stain that looks like a smiley face was just added to this page. To me, it looks like a coincidence, like TBC just drew some random stains and someone squinted at it really hard to try and see a pattern. The 'mouth' looks nothing like a mouth at all, I wouldn't even be able to spot it if the red circle wasn't there on the picture. I'm fairly new here, but as far as I know Fun Facts need to be intentional things TBC did within the cartoon, not vague coincidental similarities. If I'm wrong I'll shut up and go away, but I think this image (and the accompanying Fun Fact entry) should be removed. (Some kind of scientist 11:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Yay for double posting. I just looked at the image again, and maybe it is a smile. The edges of the mouth line up pretty closely with another stain on the wall in the background, but if you look closely at the edge of the hornblower's head, I guess it kinda does make a smile. Nevermind, whatever everyone else thinks is fine. (Some kind of scientist 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

The Dragon's Chest said (in a spiral starting at the left most and going clockwise to the middle) 'Sudden Death' 'Pots N' Pans' 'Puree' 'Tumble Dry' 'Sanitize'. This could be an example of a middle aged convenience machine, used to clean and cook.

Am I hallucinating, or is there a vague resemblance between the stylized head of the KOT and the lion from Experimental Film? I'm not saying it's strong enough to merit a fun fact, I'm just noticing a similarity. - Point7Q 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In the final scene, some of the whatsit stains on the back of The Hornblower's head resembles a Smiley Face.

Is it really necessary to add that? -Not a user

Good question — are you questioning it because you think it's accidental, or unnotable? Trey56 07:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidental. -Not a user

Whether it's accidental or not, it does resemble a smiley face, and there is no coincidence present in said fact (STUFFing). I know I've said this before, but on those grounds, if the decline stands, I will contest it. --ISlayedTheKerrek 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hereby contest the decline of the "Stains on Head" fun fact on the grounds that the decline votes were not in good faith. Why do I believe that? I believe that nearly all of them had something to do with the voters' perception of intent on TBC's part rather than whether or not the stains actually resembled a smiley face, which was the point of the fact. I submit that intent does not matter in this case, there is no coincidence, and the votes are based on something else rather than the substance of the fact and the fact should be either put on the page or re-STUFF'd with the condition that a coincidence in regards to intent cannot be considered. --ISlayedTheKerrek 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"I submit that intent does not matter in this case, there is no coincidence...." You have expressed a contradiction. If they did not intend the spots to represent a smiley, then it is indeed coincidental that they do. What if a tuft of grass in The Field looked like the letters VW? Are they advocating for a make of automobile or something? Surely not. In absence of any real reason we can determine for it being on purpose, we must assume it is a simple accident that it happened to be that way. As such, the fact would not be notable. Intent is not the sole consideration when determining the value of a Fact, but it is one. In this case, I believe it is the primary one, as there is no compelling serendipitous connection to be found to make this fact notable. In short, the stains forming a smiley is indeed a fact, but it is not a Fun Fact because there's no insight or worth to be gained by its notation. - Qermaq - (T/C) 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because there is no contradiction in my statement. If they do, they do. There's no coincidence, Qermaq. Regardless of whether or not they intended to, if they resemble something it should be noted. The fact that many of the voters, yourself included, tried to find a coincidental spot in this fact where there was none proves to me that the vote was in bad faith, and therefore invalid. Intent may be the primary consideration in determining the value of a fact, but there are certain cases where the intent of TBC doesn't matter. Whether it was accidental or intended, the whatsit stains resembled a smiley face. There's no coincidence as to that, and that was the exact point of said fact. --ISlayedTheKerrek 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be true — but I don't find it noteworthy enough to include in the article. I suspect this was the conclusion of the other voters too. Trey56 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First, if I intend to put a smiley in a picture, that's not a coincidence. A coincidence only occurs when something happens which is unintended. If there is intention, there is no coincidence. Therefore, logically, if there is a coincidence, there is no intention. Therefore, your assertion that there can be no intention AND no coincidence is a fallacy and simply unfounded. Second, I defy you to point out my vote on this STUFF. Third, we do not routinely point out mere resemblance unless it somehow makes even a LICK of sense. "Oh look, there's a smiley there." Big deal. That's not fun. That's really lame, and makes us look like a bunch of idiotic seven-year-olds rather than a legitimate knowledge base. Now, if there were some rationale to make it even coincidentally relevant that a smiley occurred in that manner (say, smileys were dealt with earlier or something) then there might be merit to its inclusion in the Fun Facts. But as is, there is not. I suggest you brush up on basic logic, get your facts straight, and consider what's for the best of the wiki. - Qermaq - (T/C) 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any grounds for assumption of bad faith in these votes. I am personally surprised this fact was walloped as badly as it was, but I just don't see any grounds here for contesting the result. It seems pretty clear to me that the users who voted to decline felt that the smiley face was likely not intended by TBC, and was as such not notable. I don't think there's much more to be done here. Heimstern Läufer 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna withdraw my contesting of said fact, because I can't win. I am, however, going to make some final points before I do. First of all, Qermaq, I really don't appreciate your last comments. I did misspeak when I thought you had voted no (in fact, you cast no vote at all), and for that I do apologize. Your logic, as it is, I will say again, does not apply here. Regardless of intent or coincidence, either a resemblance exists, or it doesn't. You don't need to get all philosophical on something when it doesn't need to be overly philosophized, and you did exactly that. You also were rather rude in your response, and I didn't appreciate that at all. Maybe I don't see your point, but that's no reason to be a jerk about it. Is it notable? That's up to the voters. But IMO, it shouldn't be about intent of the artists. It should be whether it does resemble something or it doesn't, and if it does (in this case) the decision should be made as to whether or not it's notable enough for inclusion on the board, not whether it was intended or not. Intent is separate, as is coincidence. I'm sure most of you can see some resemblance to a smiley face in the stains. If you're going to vote it down, then so be it. But I think that the merits of a fact shouldn't be as subjective as they seem to have become lately. I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time with this. --ISlayedTheKerrek 02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You say "either a resemblance exists, or it doesn't." I don't think anyone has ever disagreed with you on that point. We all think it looks like a smiley face. Where we disagree is that you say notability shouldn't depend on our perception of TBC's intent, and the majority of other users say (in at least this case) it should. In other words, I don't believe there is anything to support that the voters were confused when they cast their votes. They don't deny that it looks like a face, but, on the whole, they still don't find it notable because they don't believe TBC meant to make a face. (This is not to say that we've never noted things that might be a coincidence, but it's apparent that most people felt that this did not cross whatever threshold is required for us to note such a thing.) — It's dot com 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

True, Dot Com, true. I also think that we could all agree that it probably wasn't TBC's intent to make a smiley face (we probably will never know, as I doubt they'd tell us themselves, maybe in a DVD commentary). I felt it was notable, and apparently two others did, but the rest apparently didn't think so. And I'm sure there will be other facts along the same lines (is it notable? is it not? can we get past the coincidental-ness of it if we need to?). Some will get the nod, some won't, I'm sure. --ISlayedTheKerrek 05:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And we have reasons for that. Oddly, you seem to have the opposite argument now than you did then. --DorianGray 06:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You do too. I remember reading that you moved the article back from "Homestar Gets Something..." to "The Homestar Runner Gets Something..." BBG 14:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Our standard is to use the title from the Toons menu. In the other case, we explicitly made an exception to our standard. If you think we ought to make another exception in this case, then you should list reasons why that's a good idea. — It's dot com 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The longer title is more descriptive. The toons menu title is just gibberish. BBG 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not even need an extension. The title is NOT gibberish, it is the full name, since the toons menu would die displaying the entire name. Can't we just settle this? Leave it the way it is.

It is my firm belief that all the reasons given for referring to "Stuck in Craw" by its full name as opposed to its menu name could also apply for referring to this toon by its full name instead of its menu name. BBG 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the King of Town's Very Own Quite Popular Cartoon Show, not the KOT's VOQPCS! You can make "KOT's VOQPCS" a redirect. --Fangoriously!Chat 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more specific with what I meant by my last post, so I'll steal some quotes from the Craw Talk Page and if necessary, say how I believe they apply here:

"this longer title would not likely have fit on the toons page." The bringing up of that point was what 1st made me question this article's title.

In response to DorianGray arguing, "the full title would be gigantic", this test shows that it takes up practically the same amount of space as the full title of "Homestar Gets Something Stuck in His Craw". BBG 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm looking at it, and it's not horrible. In fact, I kind of prefer the spelled-out form for the article itself. (I see no reason we can't continue to abbreviate it in links if we want to (especially on the Toons page, where it should match the official menu).) — It's dot com 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't actually delete this page yet b/c right now what the other page specifically does is call this page and display this page's information. if we got rid of this page, that would break the other page entirely. first we would have to get rid of that page and then move this to the long title. I think we should then redirect this page title to the long title. The KnightsWhoSay Ni 02:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)